The Pros and Cons of Feminism

I read the recent postings by Satoshi Kanazawa and Regina Barreca on feminism with interest, as they highlight how sensitive and charged this topic is. In today's post, I wish to contribute to the debate by pointing out the pros and cons of feminism. In so doing, I hope to disambiguate the worthy form of feminism (as a movement fighting injustice) from its outlandish counterpart (as an academic discipline capable of apparently contributing to fields as varied as psychology, ecology, physics, biology, chemistry, and mathematics, as well as being a hotbed for misandry).

Women have faced countless brutal forms of institutionalized discrimination since time immemorial and in all sorts of cultural settings. This is an undeniable and morally reprehensible truth. Accordingly, feminism as a movement, in seeking to create equality for women in the social, political, economic, and occupational spheres (to name a few domains), is laudable. There is no moral reason that a woman should not be allowed to vote, should not have equal access to education and health care, should not make the same amount of money as a man performing the same job, etc. Feminism has been singularly responsible for redressing these deeply sexist social injustices. This is what I would call benevolent feminism and accordingly under this rubric I would proudly call myself a feminist, as I abhor all forms of injustice and intolerance. See a discussion of my personal history replete with virulent intolerance here.

Now let's turn to the outlandish, nonsensical, and harmful forms of feminism, which I shall coin hostile feminism. I shall restrict my discussion to four key issues.

(1) From the onset of the movement, many radical feminists rapidly converged on the erroneous idea that if women are to be treated equally in all walks of life, it is important to demonstrate that men and women are indistinguishable beings. Hence, all sex differences short of one's genitalia were attributed to socialization. An average three-year old knows this position to be laughable yet this is a central mantra in Women's Studies programs and related feminist literature. See Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge for endless examples of irrational and blatantly falsifiable feminist positions.

Men and women should be equal under the law albeit they are distinguishable biological beings. Wishing away sex differences, and creating imaginary narratives about the power of socialization in shaping all sex differences, is idiotic. It does not take a sophisticated Darwinist to recognize that we are a sexually dimorphic and sexually reproducing species. By definition, this implies that men and women possess some innate biological-based differences.

(2) Some forms of feminism have been harmful in that they have built an ideological foundation that is anti-male. Apparently, mysogyny is reprehensible and evil but misandry is virtuous and laudable. I could probably list 1,000 quotes from leading feminist theorists that are extraordinarily offensive and deeply sexist. If the same feminist quotes were altered such that the word "man" was changed to "woman", the quotes in question would be construed as horrifyingly sexist. Yet when spoken by "liberatory feminists", they are perfectly permissible. I am sure that most readers are familiar with the words of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon to the effect that all men are rapists, and that heterosexual sex is nothing short of rape. I should add that according to many feminists, men who consume pornography are at the very least "rapists-in-training." I wonder how we might go about reproducing given that heterosexual mating is apparently "violently penetrative." I suppose that with the advances of artificial insemination, men are disposable (some feminists have incidentally argued for this position). Or perhaps men might learn to inseminate women via "no touch" tantric sex. Alternatively, we can explore the possibilities of human cloning as a means of extending our genes. Anything will do as long as we eradicate "penetrative heterosexual mating" from the repertoire of human sexuality.

(3) In the strange world of academic feminism, the knowledge bases of venerable scientific fields are suspect if not incomplete because men have been the major contributors in those fields. I am not talking about Film Studies and Literary Criticism wherein one might argue that interpretive texts and other cultural products might benefit in being analyzed from multiple ideological viewpoints. Unbeknownst to natural scientists, the hard sciences including physics, chemistry, and biology, apparently need to be infused with feminist theory. Really!? Now if this were not sufficiently hallucinatory, apparently mathematics (the purest of all fields) is incomplete and biased, as it lacks a feminist perspective. Having been trained in mathematics, I wondered what feminist mathematics might be. I had to read Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science coauthored by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt to get my answer. Apparently, arithmetic word problems are inherently sexist in their content, and hence can be "liberated" by a feminist lens. Wow! Take for example the following word problem: "Bob is a fireman who makes $40,000 a year. His boss, Fire Chief Larry has advised him that he will be receiving a 5% salary increase next year. What will his new yearly salary be?" Feminist mathematics would alter fireman to firewoman (or perhaps fireperson); it would change the name Bob to Barbara. It would also alter Larry to Linda. I am not making this stuff up. I am not being facetious. I am being literal. Oh no. It is time to reconsider all the knowledge that has been amassed in mathematics over the past four or so millennia, as the "sexist" mathematical axioms have been demolished. Sir Isaac Newton, it's time to update your calculus manual. You are sexist sir. As a Lebanese Jew, I wonder if I could develop a new branch of mathematics that speaks to my ethnic identity. "Ibrahim is an accountant who makes $40,000 a year. His boss Mordechai Rosenberg has advised him that his salary will increase by 5%..."

Not satisfied at having "liberated" mathematics from its “sexist” shackles, academic feminists have enlightened us about the sexist properties of DNA. Specifically, feminist biochemistry proposes that DNA is an instrument of male dominance as evidenced by its "master molecule" narrative (McElroy, 1996). Nice! I could provide you countless other examples of “scientific contributions” arising from feminist theorists however I am assuming that you get the general idea.

(4) The feminist movement has created confusion regarding the permissible dynamics between the sexes. Men and women no longer trust their Darwinian instincts; instead they seek to adhere to new "feminist" rules of intersexual conduct, as they are highly fearful of being accused of being "sexist pigs" or "tools of the patriarchy." See my earlier posts regarding benevolent sexism here and here, as it very much relates to this point. Am I allowed to compliment my female colleague about her beautiful dress or would this be harassment? Can she compliment me on how smart I look in my new suit or would she be objectifying me as man-meat? Hence, most individuals now thread very carefully in their daily dynamics as they are terrified at the prospect of making a "social faux pas" that is otherwise forbidden by the feminist ethos.

To recapitulate, let us applaud feminism for its contributions in making our societies more equitable and just, and less sexist (although more work remains). However, let's stamp out the nonsense that is promulgated by the great majority of feminist theorists.

I agree 100% with your article! I would also like to note that academic feminism may actually harm the ideals put forth by women continue to fight for change in genuine inequalities. We tend to dismiss entire concepts when things start to look like nonsense. After my freshman year at a University, I declared that I would never be a feminist. It took me many years out of college to redefine feminism for what it really is and align myself with women who truely make a difference. I almost denied myself this fufilling opportunity to stand up for human rights due to the number of professors shoving nonsensical mantra down my throat for 4+ years.

Out of the feminist articles that have been posted lately this is my favorite. I consider myself a feminist but I could never stand it when I was told the only thing that is diffrent in women and men is the way they are raised. I always like to point out that my breasts are purely a social construction, and so my brain must develop due to social construction alone as well!

I was delighted to read your honest outlooks on the matter. As you might imagine, it is always tricky to write such an article, as one is likely to receive many hateful (if not irrational) responses. Accordingly, I am thankful for your supportive messages.

(Good) Feminism is about what "ought" to be... it is not a scientific theory about what "is" and how it got to be that way. It is "good" if you think its basic philosophical/political goals are "good." (Generally, I agree with those goals.) For example, men may be taller than women in general, but, both should be given equal opportunity to prove their skills in trying out for a mixed-sex basketball team.

(Bad) Feminism is about trying to explain what "is" using reference to "what ought" (as well as reliance on non-scientific methodologies). It commits the moralistic fallacy by suggesting that what "ought" implies what "is." Example: men and women ought to be the same height, therefore, there can be no biological basis for the average height difference between the sexes. The best basketball teams (once we get rid of... er, ...something that is purely "socially constructed") will always have an equal representation of males and females, because that is what is moral, and "what is" is always what is moral.

It is clear what your intention in writing this article was, so why did you bother making it "the pros and cons". Instead, the title should be "Mostly cons and some pros to shut them feminazis up'.

Not to mention that your cons are clearly strawmen. The feminist issue with the sciences is pretty simple and you do not address it. It is that the academic sciences are portrayed as being objective, but nothing can be objective so that statement is false.

On to your nature vs. nurture question. Feminist (generally speaking) agree that there are innate differences between the sexes, but the differences are small when you compare them differences created due to socialisation.

(1) "Not to mention that your cons are clearly strawmen. The feminist issue with the sciences is pretty simple and you do not address it. It is that the academic sciences are portrayed as being objective, but nothing can be objective so that statement is false."

I am afraid that you are making my point in the latter quote. Mathematical axioms are indeed perfectly objective, as are endless other scientific laws. Hence, the postmodernist/feminist tenet that "all is relative" and hence that the natural sciences are suspect is weak drivel. This is why scientists, both men and women alike, do not take such anti-science talk very seriously. This might impress undergraduate students in Women's Studies classes but it fails within the greater pantheon of intellectual thought.

(2) "On to your nature vs. nurture question. Feminist (generally speaking) agree that there are innate differences between the sexes, but the differences are small when you compare them differences created due to socialisation."

The innate differences that most feminists "concede" are of the extraordinarily trivial and obvious variety. There is well over four decades of feminist literature that abdicates the importance of biology in explaining sex differences. Hence, your desire to revise the feminist doctrine crumbles against endless published feminist writings wherein biology is largely rejected as relevant in explaining the great majority of sex differences.

Your opening sentence seems to hint at a "hidden agenda" I had in writing my post. Are you referring to the conspiratorial patriarchal agenda by any chance? If so, I can assure you that I have never attended any of the patriarchy's secret meetings. :)

I'm afraid your mathematical training must have been insufficient if you believe that mathematical axioms are objective. They are not. Perhaps you should stick to marketing rather than attempt to comment on the academics of feminism or mathematics?

The rumor, the lie, that Andrea Dworkin and Catharine A. MacKinnon said all sex is rape and all men are rapists is spuriously and consistently promoted on the Internet to discredit and malign them and their important work on behalf of humanity and human rights for women. For the truth about what they did and didn't say, see this at Snopes.com, called "Rape Seeded":

It would seem that whereas you are arguing that the position of Dworkin and MacKinnon on rape have been misconstrued by everyone (including many staunch academic feminists), you are perfectly capable of uttering words to that effect on your own!

I have referenced Drs. Patai and Koertge's book in my post. You can follow their reference(s) for additional details. There are countless other sources wherein the words of Dworkin and MacKinnon are quite explicitly clear. Now, many of their stated positions are so outrageous, that the backlash has forced them (and their supporters) to argue that the patriarchy has created a concerted effort to malign them. I will not rehash all of the sources that highlight their views. It is abundantly available to anyone who wishes to pursue this endeavor.

On a different note, I am happy that you identified yourself (although I suspect that Julian Real is a pseudonym). To quote from your blog titled Radical Profeminist: "THIS BLOG EXISTS TO CHALLENGE WHITE HETEROSEXUAL MALE SUPREMACY AS AN INSTITUTIONALIZED IDEOLOGY AND A SYSTEMATIZED SET OF PRACTICES WHICH ARE MISOGYNISTIC, HETEROSEXIST, GENOCIDAL, AND ECOCIDAL."

Sounds to me that you have a rather harsh ideological bent. I wonder if this might taint your perspective.

Incidentally, the systematic rapes of thousands of women that are currently being committed in Congo...are white heterosexual males responsible for these atrocities? What about female circumcision in some Islamic societies? What about the genocide in Darfur? Finally, as an Arab-Jew, do I get lumped in with the "evil white males" or do I get a free pass given that I am semitic and possess olive skin? I'm keeping my fingers crossed...

I think that your blog's raison d'etre speaks volume. I'll leave it to the sophisticated readers of this blog to decide for themselves.

I wonder about Dr. Gaad's ability to speak as a truly informed writer on the subject of feminism, given that he teaches Marketing at a Business School. Afterall, I certainly wouldn't take medical advice from someone with a Ph.D in Fine Arts.

Dr. Gaad, have you taken any courses in feminist theory or conducted any peer reviewed research that would contribute to your ability to provide an empirical and unbiased opinion from a feminist vantage point? Or is this based more on anecdotal observations? Being a research scientist myself, I would like to see the "data" that substantiate your viewpoint on the cons of feminism beyond stereotypes that we read in the media.

Thank you for reading my post and for providing your input. Are you suggesting that I need to be a professor of Women's Studies to be able to analyze some of the central tenets of feminism? As a behavioral scientist, I am well aware of the feminist writings that have seeped into the social and behavioral sciences in general and into the marketing discipline in particular. Also, as an evolutionist, I have become quite attuned to the tension between those who believe that men and women do possess innate differences and those (e.g., feminists) who resist such notions.

As far as the "data" that you speak of, it is contained in the feminist writings. I have provided in my post several references to substantiate the various claims that I have put forth.

BTW, in an earlier post, I discussed a study that dealt with men's dancing ability. Should I first become a dancer, dance instructor, or professor of dance prior to providing an analysis of the study in question? What about when I discussed various issues dealing with religion. I suppose that I should keep my mouth shut about the topic since I am not a professor of theology. I also put up a post on food-related behaviors at a Chinese buffet. I am assuming that you do not think that I should have done so since I am neither a registered dietician nor a professor of nutrition. Nice!

Are you familiar with the notion of interdisciplinarity? You may wish to check out my personal website to see the various fields that I have published in.

By the way, why hide under the cloak of anonymity? Why not provide your full name when submitting comments?

I enjoyed your column; it touched on something I was talking to my husband about yesterday, while we were picking wild blackberries.

I always bag more blackberries than he does. I'm not faster than he is. I don't cover more area. I can SEE more edible blackberries than he can. I've read scientific articles (I'm a scientist myself) that infer brain differences re: how males and females perceive their environments -- the usual argument revolves around whether ancient environments themselves caused this male/female perceptual dichotomy, or whether it came about due to preferred food-gathering roles.

The upshot of it is that, while I was gathering more blackberries, it was my husband who noticed the movement of fish in the stream. Therefore, by working together, we not only had blackberry cobbler last night, we had broiled trout as well.

IMHO, rather than arguing about "different/same" as if it implied "better/worse" (which it emphatically does not,) our energies would be better spent honoring the differences and, thereby, making the world a better place through them.

Many thanks for your insights. I am very familiar with the sex differences that you mentioned in your comments, as I have written on this topic in my book (The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption), as well as having published a recent paper dealing with this issue:

Jesus f-ing Christ people! How could one possibly interpret a criticism of the wording of a math problem to be a criticism of the math itself! It seems to me that the author is really reaching to find something to give feminists a hard time about. The power of language is well documented.

Obviously, there are inborn biological differences between the sexes. One of the aims of feminism is to give woman (and men) who do not conform neatly to the accepted definitions of masculinity and femininity more acceptance in our society than they are given today. Saying that some women are more "masculine" than some men, and some men are more "feminine" than some women is not saying that men and women are identical, just that whatever one is should be acceptable.

In addition, I find it difficult to believe that it is a feminist standard that all heterosexual sex is rape, no matter how prominent the feminist who said so. To pass such an assertion along in this way is horribly irresponsible, as it might confirm stereotypes about feminism in the minds of people who are less knowledgeable and thus prevent them from sticking up for themselves in order to prevent being identified with the writers of such nonsense.

In conclusion, feminism is a good thing. Even when taken too far, it makes little difference in the status quo.

In your comments, you refer to "y'all" and "people" in calling "us" idiots. Who are you referring to specifically? The evil patriarchy? Men?

Your temper tantrum and corresponding insults will not make the feminist writings/positions on these issues go away. They are well documented in endless sources (a few of which I cited in my post).

I did not misconstrue anything in my post. You simply need to do a bit of reading and you'll be able to see that all of those items that I spoke of regarding feminism are available in innumerable references.

Thanks for the article, it'll be good discussion material for later with my wife.

For what it's worth here is another example of harmful feminism that I've noticed in my own meandering experience.

I believe feminism has actually hindered women's advancement in the workplace due to over zealous HR policies relating to sexual harassment. In my career (Software Engineering) I've noticed women having a hard time getting help because the guys are scared to death of offending them and losing their job. Right or wrong guys now believe that they can lose their job for just about anything because sexual harassment has come to mean anything a man says that a woman doesn't like.

I'm speaking of the shades of gray areas here and not quid pro quo harassment which everyone should know is wrong.

Thank you for your interesting article. I can see that you have several relevant and well thought out points, but I also have some concerns that I thought I would share. Sorry for the length!

Firstly, I have some concerns with the term "benevolent feminism" and “harmful feminism”. More obviously because you have not really outlined in your article what such benevolence looks like (except that it is the opposite of harmful) and seem to have treated such terms as self-evident rather than being categories that you have defined. Does benevolence mean not offending anyone, or not pushing anyone’s buttons? What happens if I do – does this get termed as “harmful” to women? I think that we sometimes forget that feminism is at heart a political movement - one which is primarily concerned with social change. Thus, feminism constantly strives to push boundaries, and part of this is about proposing radical ideas. Whilst these can sometimes be uncomfortable, distasteful and certainly disliked, at what point do they become actively harmful?

The arguments about sex differences is an interesting one, in so far as there are not many feminists (that I know) that would argue against the idea that sex is a biological category of difference. However, what is missing from your account is that sex is not the only biological category of difference, and yet we have invested it with such importance and it is so central to the way that we organise our society. We make huge claims about the essential nature of women and men based on biological difference alone. For example, that woman is more emotional than man because she carries children. Thus, feminists in general are not arguing the biological difference does not exist, but that the reduction of women and men to biology is insidious and allows wider forms of prejudice to exist. Similar arguments have been made about race difference.

Your arguments about feminists being anti-male are not new, and have been made many times over. In fact, it is a classic way to dismiss feminism as being prejudiced in and of itself. What is missing from your account is an analysis of power difference. Men and women do not occupy the same power positions in society and therefore you cannot equate claims that women make about men, and claims that men make about women because they do not carry the same consequences. Which does not make them okay – and I am not say that it does. Just that you cannot equate them and we need to be careful doing so.

Finally, I am not going to really get involved in the science arguments as the arguments and counter arguments have been fairly well documented. Suffice to say that it is true that women have not been fairly treated by science, and that science itself has been used to subjugate women for centuries. There are numerous examples of this, for example, experiments which have typically taken “male” to equal norm against which women are compared and found wanting – again similar arguments have been made about race and other categories of difference. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable for these disciplines to begin to analyse themselves. I do actually think that it is a big deal that all of the language used in mathematics is male-dominated. What kind of message are we sending to young women who want to be scientists (the few that do)?

I realise that this might place me in the category of "harmful" feminist, which is I guess the power of that category. But, I can't believe that as feminists we should get to say nothing that shakes things up. Otherwise, we woudn't really be doing our jobs

Many thanks for having taken the time to read my post and for writing such an in-depth set of comments.

Rather than repeating your comments here, I will address them in the order in which they appeared:

(1) By benevolent feminism, I am specifically referring to the social movement that has been at the forefront of redressing endemic sexist practices in society. By hostile sexism, I am referring to the strands of feminism that are hostile to reason, hostile to men, hostile to science, etc.

(2) Well, we must be reading different feminist sources, as one of the central tenets of the social constructivist movement (of which feminism is one of the strongest adherents) is the fact that much of human behavior (including sex differences) are socially constructed. The published evidence in support of the fact that most feminists deny the great majority of biological-based sex differences is unequivocal. This issue has been at the center of the nature-nurture debate, which most evolutionists recognize as a moot point (since we are all an inextricable mix of our biology and our environment).

(3) Sexist opinions of men, as espoused by many feminists, are offensive irrespective of the mental gymnastics that one engages in to try and justify them. The argument that women cannot be sexist because men are in power is ludicrous. This is akin to another classic justification namely that visible minorities cannot be racist because it is a white man's world. Sexism and racism are not under the monopoly of one group of individuals. It is morally wrong wherever it is found.

(4) Yes, women have been discriminated against in science. Yes, word problems in mathematics have been historically male-oriented. This in no way applies that there is a reality in mathematics, organic chemistry, or relativity theory that is uniquely "reachable" by a feminist perspective. These fields contain scientific truths that lie outside the feminist's social and political reality.

(5) Shaking things up in the social, economic, and political spheres is wonderful. Shaking things up in academia by espousing nonsense is not.

This whole article is about setting up strawfeminists. No actual feminists are quoted; rather, the article relies on misquotes of Mackinnon and Dworkin (who aren't all that representative of contemporary feminisms anyway), the "research" of anti-feminists such as Patai and McElroy, and the nebulous nefariousness of "many radical feminists," "Women's Studies programs," "some forms of feminism," "liberatory feminists," "academic feminism," "the feminist movement," and "the great majority of feminist theorists."

(1) For each of the examples that I provided in my post, I included the relevant references so that the readers can judge for themselves. Hence, I did not misquote or misconstrue anything.

(2) The words of Dworkin and Mackinnon are so radical that they've come back to haunt them. Hence, feminists now proclaim that their words "were taken out of context," "were misquoted," "were misunderstood," etc. If all else fails then the "but they are not representative of contemporary feminists" kicks in. Nice!

If these feminists are no longer relevant, I wonder whether Women's Studies programs have ceased to assign their writings as required readings.

(3) You may wish to dismiss my anecdote about "feminist mathematics" as much as you'd like but feminists are indeed on record as saying that mathematics is inherently biased by virtue of it having been largely developed by men (same applies to Physics and Chemistry to name but two other sciences).

No strawmen here. I am reporting the feminist positions in complete accuracy. Now, you may be embarrassed by these positions in which case you deny, deny, deny. However, it will not change the published words of the feminists in question.

(1) Your references aren't the relevant ones; they're to other anti-feminist hatchet jobs rather than to the feminists you're purportedly talking about.

(2) Physicists still study Newton, and psychologists still study Freud; that doesn't mean that they regard them as the pinnacle of their fields. Dworkin and Mackinnon are of interest from a historical perspective, and a philosophical one, but they're certainly not taught as Received Wisdom anywhere I'm familiar with.

(3) Once again, you're saying things like "feminists are indeed on record as saying" rather than providing a specific citation. Who are "the feminists in question"? You never say.

(1) Dismiss them as irrelevant as they do not represent contemporary feminism
(2) Argue that they are taken out of context
(3) Provide some silly mental gymnastics to explain the quote away
(4) Deny that the person in question ever espoused the quoted position

I have played this game before with other types of ideological fundamentalists (e.g., strongly religious folks), and apparently I have NEVER been able to provide them the "required" evidence. For example, I have spoken to rabbis who have asked the exact same thing of me but with regards to evolutionary theory: "Show me one piece of evidence in support of evolution. You can't." Hence, rather than waste my time and yours, let's both agree to move on.

As it stands, you can feel good at having "uncovered" a member of the evil patriarchal conspiracy, and I'll go about enjoying my weekend.

All that said, many thanks for having read my post. I appreciate your taking the time to write.

Thanks for the fantastic anecdote. If you can provide the name of the speaker in question, it would be helpful as otherwise you'll be accused of "making stuff up as part of the patriarchal conspiracy to demean feminist contributions to mathematics." ;)

Dear GS,
Many thanks for your reply, just a few further thoughts on some of your points about social constructionism:

2) Well, we must be reading different feminist sources, as one of the central tenets of the social constructivist movement (of which feminism is one of the strongest adherents) is the fact that much of human behaviour (including sex differences) are socially constructed. The published evidence in support of the fact that most feminists deny the great majority of biological-based sex differences is unequivocal. This issue has been at the center of the nature-nurture debate, which most evolutionists recognize as a moot point (since we are all an inextricable mix of our biology and our environment).

I think that we are not only reading different feminists, but readings on social constructionism. SC is a very wide field of work with many different theoretical orientations and claims. While there are some radical anti-realist camps in this field, I do not think that we can claim these to be the central tenets of the movement, or feminism as a proponent of this movement. The feminist social constructionist argument is in the main, a subtler one I think. While many do not deny that there are biological differences between men and women, they argue against the biological determinism that claims an essentialised nature for men and women based on such biological difference – that is that men and women have a certain nature, predisposition, personality traits etc because they are biologically different. Instead, what it means to be a women or a man is said to be contingent on society, history and culture and therefore socially constructed. For some theorists this often expressed as a distinction between sex and gender, with sex being the physical, and gender the socially constructed meaning that is attributed to this biological difference. Although, some feminists also argue that such a distinction is not always useful, as clearly biological difference and the meaning that is given to such biological difference are always intertwined. However, across both camps is the argument that what it MEANS to be women or men is not a matter of biology but a matter of society.

Therefore, feminists and social constructionists do not deny that biologically based sex differences exist. To claim that something is socially constructed is never to deny that such things are “real” in the sense that they have real consequences and structure our society in very real ways. Instead, they question where such differences come from, and feminists have traditionally denied that such things can be simply reduced to biology. For example, claims that women are not suited to voting as they are not biologically capable of moral thinking. Or, the ongoing argument about working mothers, which research has shown is almost always based in biological arguments about the nature of women, and the nature of children. This questioning of biological reductionism has been very useful for feminists in helping them to move forward both politically and socially, and has led to a very important questioning for both men and women about what it means to be masculine or feminine.

Of course, these questions around meaning and identity are an ongoing project, with many debates and arguments. Not the least of which is that several theorists have recently argued that this ‘two-sex model’ isn't straightforward in that around 1.7% of population fail to neatly fall within the usual sex classifications possessing various combinations of different sex characteristics. Recognition of intersexes suggests that feminists (and society at large) are wrong to classify individuals only as female or male: there should be more than two sex categories. An issue which is often raised in world athletics you will note. Either way, however, I do think that the valuable work that has been done by feminists who have attacked the biological reductionism inherent in both academic circles and society needs to be acknowledged as one of the foundations of feminist progression.

(1) Biological determinism is a non-issue. I explained it in my rebuttal to Sharon Begley's article in Newsweek (see my earlier post on this matter). The determinism argument is tired, dated, and erroneous. Evolutionists have spent an undue amount of time and energy explaining that to argue that a phenomenon is rooted in a biological reality in no way implies that it is deterministic.

(2) I am afraid that as much as you'd like to argue that social constructivists recognize that biology matters, the reality is that most do not.

I am attaching an extraordinarily small sample of possible quotes to that effect.

“There is no female mind. The brain is not an organ of sex. Might as well speak of a female liver.” – Charlotte Perkins Gilman (Utopian feminist)

Quotes from p. 124 of my book (The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption):

Sexuality is socially constructed, that is, it is a learned set of behaviors accompanied by cognitive interpretations of these behaviors. Sexuality, then is less a product of biology than of the socialization processes specific to a given culture at a particular point in time (Fracher & Kimmel, 1995). The most significant element of this construction is gender. (Rohlinger, 2002, p. 62)

I claim that, unless the contrary can be proved, we must assume that all complex activities are socially determined, not hereditary.
---- Franz Boas

Heredity cannot be allowed to have acted any part in history.
---- Albert Kroeber

With the exception of the instinctoid reactions in infants to sudden withdrawals of support and to sudden loud noises, the human being is entirely instinctless . . . Man is man because he has no instincts, because everything he is and has become he has learned, acquired, from his culture, from the man-made part of the environment, from other human beings.
---- Ashley Montagu

Much of what is commonly called ‘human nature’ is merely culture thrown against a screen of nerves, glands, sense organs, muscles, etc.
---- Leslie White

Cultural phenomena . . . are in no respect hereditary but are characteristically and without exception acquired.
---- George Murdock

The organism possesses no ready-made reaction to the other sex, any more than it possesses innate ideas.
---- Zing Yang Kuo

Most social scientists of the 20th century have argued that what makes us human is that we transcend our biology. As such, they have argued that we are cultural animals and not biological ones. You may wish to revise history at this point but the accumulated literature in the social sciences is quite clear (be it in sociology, non-biological psychology disciplines, cultural anthropology, Women's Studies, etc.).

I hope that you are having a good week as well.

GS

P.S. As I have mentioned to other individuals who put up comments, it would be courteous of you if you'd identify yourself fully (especially since I am taking the time to write you long replies).

""Women have faced countless brutal forms of institutionalized discrimination since time immemorial and in all sorts of cultural settings.""

Replace the word "women" with the word "humans" and the sentence is equally true. Feminism is an ideology rooted in IGNORING male problems, only talking about female problems, and then calling it discrimination. Well it is, if you only mention women's problems, it seems like men have no problems.

ONE:

Example Feminist Claim: Women didn't have the right to vote!!! Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!

CounterPoint: Neither did men. Democracy was invented in the last 0.0000001% of human history. For most of other time we were both under tyrrany

TWO:

Example Feminist Claim: Women Couldn't go to school!!!!!!!!

CounterPoint: Neither could men. 99.99999% of people were iliterate when women couldn't go to school. Two men per million being literate vs. 1 woman (the queen) is hardly en example of "opression of women".

I could give you a thousand examples, but the whole notion of "women had it worst for most of history" is complete hogwash, and is contructed by the following trick "Women couldn't x!!!"... With "x" being something that 99.9999% of the population couldn't for 99.9999% of history.

The other trick they use is pointing out female difficulties, not mentioning men have an equally difficult but different difficulty.

Feminist Claim: Women were forced to stay at home and cook and clean and take care of the children and they had no other choice!!!!!

Counter Claim: Women were forced to bust their backs in the field all day and fights wars and they had no other choice.

So can we stop with the BS about the supposed "history-long opression of women". That claim is in itself insenstive to men, because our own opression is deemend unimportant. It only matter that my great-grandma couldn't vote, but for some reason we don't care that my great-grandpa couldn't vote either. Apparently men don't matter.

I 100% agree with this article and I truly believe that in order for true equality to exist we need to understand our differences rather than pretend there aren't any.

I have experienced many situations where it is socially acceptable to be what I see as sexiest to men. I think this is party a recoiling affect. What I mean is that society has accepted that things need to change and equality is important however they have focused purely on fixing certain issues such as female oppression rather than over all equality. People are also so scared of being sexist that they are being overly lenient.

It is now the case that if a man instantly expects a woman to cook for him he is in the wrong (and rightly so). However, if a women expects a man to pull up a chair for her in a restaurant before sitting down himself it is the man who is in the wrong also if he doesn't. I am not saying that men shouldn't pull out chairs for women, however on the slip side most feminist would spit venom at any woman who simply enjoys cooking meals for her husband as it would mean that she is "under his thumb".

Sexism exist nowadays however it has ironically taken the form of equality and etiquette. Women are now expected to be strong and independent as showing a feminine side is now shunned upon. Where women once had a pressure on them to cook for their husband and be good house wives they are now expected to stay as far away from that stereotype as possible. Men on the other hand and still have the old expectations to be strong and supportive and to "look after their woman" however they also have an expectation to fulfil the role of the modern man who cooks clean and picks up the kids.

I am going to be "sexist" here in saying this but the stereotypes are generally true. If the car breaks down would I be sexist in guessing that the person who will end up poking around under the bonnet will be a man? Or if some fabric needs stitching would I be sexist in assuming that the woman will most likely be the one with the sowing kit? This does not however mean that it could/should not happen the other way around of course. It is just a simple fact that though society and biology, men and women are different animals.

The equality we have is an illusion. I would like to live in a world were wives can still choose to cook for their husbands and husbands can pull out chairs for their wives without either one being snarled at by feminists who view this as some kind of oppression.

P.S.

Just to drag out that comment a little bit more I would like to give an example of something that I experienced in college when I was about 18 (I am only 20 now) that I am still slightly frustrated about.

During a lunch break me, my friends and a group of girls were talking. I don't know how the conversation turned to it but we suddenly started talking about how men are all jerks (by we I actually mean the girls). Anyway one of the girls took this a step too far and decided to slap each guy in the group around the face, saying each time "men are jerks", this was obviously in a joke-like passion but she sure does pack a punch. Of course the expectation was that as a man we should stand there and take it and that is what everyone did... except when she came to me. My instant response was to grab her hand as soon as it came towards my face. Her response then was to whip her hand back in horror, start shouting about how I attacked a women and then began to cry. I was then not only shunned by the women in the group but also by the men in the group.

To me this is horrifically sexist. Not only to go round hitting men (image if that was the other way around) but to then turn it so that when she has the right to attack and have it seen as a joke, yet I am not allowed to defend (with actually much less force) otherwise it is me who is in the wrong and the situation suddenly becomes serious.

This article made me very saad. To begin, I realize that you are addressing CERTAIN forms of extreme feminism, but I think you fail to acknowledge that point in your breakdown of hostile feminism. You seem to take the radical and extreme examples to "stamp out the nonsense that is promulgated by the great majority of feminist theorists". I have taken Women's Studies courses at the university level and Dee hit it on the head. There is no black and white feminism - there is liberal feminism, radical feminism, Ecofeminism, cultural feminism, and the list goes on and on. While central tenants remain among these different factions of feminism, most obvious being that women have been historically oppressed, very few assume the position that there are no biological differences between men and women; even fewer are those who contribute to the "anti-male" perspective.

It is incorrect to say, given the considerable range of feminist approaches, that nonsense is promulgated by the GREAT majority. Even within the different types of feminism, there is often a breakdown of beliefs that some subscribe to and others do not. Radical feminism opposes patriarchy because it is the root of female oppression- not men. In equating radical feminism to an "anti-male" perspective one assumes that patriarchy and men are inseparable entities, which they are not. Patriarchy is a system and cannot exist without men. Men, however, can and will exist after patriarchy.

In your third point, I agree that it would be silly to ask that mathematical word problems be reworked to appear more gender equitable. I think you miss the point here, though. I believe Women's Studies, as a methodological approach, aims to analyze how this LANGUAGE construction ("fireman"; the boss also being male)conveys widely-held, yet mostly antiquated and unfair, views about the role of men and the role of women. It is not to say that scientific fields need to be freed from "sexist shackles", rather women's access and reception into the field must be reexamined. If math problems consistently take a male perspective, then the female will, naturally, feel unwelcome and therefore, absent as a scholar of that field. The absence is not due to a lack of capability, but because she is fighting to be in a field that has for hundreds of years fought to keep her out. And remember, at one point Einstein, one of the most revered scientists, believed that the universe was static- the size an unchanging constant. Could it be within the realm of possibility that DNA is actually not the "master molecule" scientists once thought it to be? Maybe, just maybe, we don't have the technology or human capability to fully understand just how DNA works and perhaps it's only a small factor in the biological make up of the human genome. Just a thought.

And lastly, yes, today there does exist a good deal of confusion regarding dynamics. But this is not because of nonsensical or harmful forms of feminism, it has occured because the feminist movement as a whole has changed the way relationships between men and women are perceived by either gender engaging and interacting with one another. Again, there will always be the extreme view whether it be within feminism, political parties, or scientific fields (afterall, there are well respected scientists who believe in creationism!) So while your arguments regarding the harms of extremism may be true, your analysis implicates feminist approaches that do not actually fall into the categories that you seem to assume they do. I think it may be helpful to read further into the different theories of feminism to gain a better understanding of the various held beliefs- none of which truly make up a majority. I've linked a few sites that may be of interest to you.

I think he made it really clear that he was talking about radical academic feminism and not the other thousands of branches of feminism that you've identified. I think he made it quite clear that he was against a certain kind of feminism. The thing I find remarkable about people arguing about feminism is that most of their arguments tend to be quite similar to arguments made by religious people in defending their faith (I don't find anything wrong with defend one's faith but atleast when the religious folks do it nobody tries to justify it as an academic argument). Much like them you whenever criticized for the more radical aspects of one's ideology you would tend to come up with the "they are a small fringe" or "there is no one way" argument. Sadly you seem to be missing the point where he is specifically talking about that very radical segment and you feel attacked since he mentioned the term feminism. If your feminism is not the same as those radical feminists, you wouldn't regard this as an attack on feminism arguing that there are many different aspects of feminism which he isn't considering.
Going onto your second point about Patriarchy, I find it interesting how you first sought to dismiss the radical feminists and then tried to explain their reasoning (much like the religious trying to justify or explain the actions of their radical co-religionists). However, if you think their view can be explained in the wider context of opposing "The System" rather than the gender then why not actually phrasing it that way.
I think on the contrary you missed the point he was trying to make. His point was that for scientists the language or linguistic considerations are meaningless (especially for natural scientists). His entire argument is that it is albeit silly to assume that just because the examples used are male that women will be taken aback and feel unwelcomed. Since the whole idea is not to think about the example but about the phenomenon or scientific principles underlying it. If you keep trying to focus too much on the example (and the socio-political reasons for its construction) and not on the phenomenon you are probably not a good choice for a person to be studying natural science anyways. Also the example Dr. Saad gives is a extremely relevant since it evaluates that the presence of race, ethnicity etc in examples is and should not be a concern for a scientist since the point is to understand phenomenon and not hook onto the example. Also what I dont understand when gender studies majors make such arguments, do they assume women are such frail creatures that they could be deterred by examples thinking more about how "socially oppressive" the example is rather than focusing on the scientific phenomenon being discussed in it. Surely I or the many South Asians who have been making their large presence within natural sciences or computing felt all across the world are not swayed by the Anglo-Saxon centrist nature of examples in our mathematics or science textbooks.
Lastly the point about your DNA not being the master molecule would be taken seriously if you had prowess in biology. If a majority of biologists were making the claim similar to yours, I would have considered that as an argument but since people who are hardly versed in natural sciences make such claims I would give as much interest to their argument as I would give to a person of strong religious faith arguing that the world is flat or that people coexisted with dinosaurs. This very statement of yours underscores the similarity between those who share a religious ideology or a socio-political ideology as they want others to bow to their explanations of all subjects despite having little understanding of them. See unlike Humanities and Social Sciences (which could mostly be read and learn't since they aren't scientific or objective in the strictest of senses) you generally have to be well versed in Natural Sciences to be making claims about it. This is the very thing which ideologues fail to understand.

I would say you missed the mark. I am interning as a group therapist and I cant say I know it all about feminist therapy but you failed to actually discuss any pros and cons here. What you did, was become hostile yourself towards feminist therapy and spit out a bunch of nonsense about women pointing out there is a diferrence in the genome, our hights, Im surprised while you were metioning Darwinism you didnt throw out there that Darwin thinks women are intelectually inferior. I had a discussion with my psycology professor. I told him I knew a bunch of females that work at Nasa Ames Research Center that are extreemly smart. And if I can find just one woman on par with any smart man. Your theory flew out the window!
You seem to be full of microagressions towards feminist therapy. Says a lot about your male dominated nature there doesnt it? The point about Feminist therapy is that it tries to rule out all that male dominance where it is not needed. There is no real need for male dominance in therapy. In therapy, we treat the family as a unit or a whole. There is no dominance! Each person compliments the other. There is equality. Everyones feelings are cared for and not run over by male dominated thinking, which can be very incorrect at times.
The best way to explain the feminist theory, is to ask. How would any male, feel, if they had to live by the standards that women have to put up with. Any rational male would say NO! Thats what needs to change.
Good lead off, then you took off into left feild, and forgot what you were talking about. I give it a C. You sound like you can do better. I'd love to see it.

Very well said, without addressing any pros and focusing entirely on loosely quoted (and by many commenters, evidence of misquoted) "hostile feminists", this author has ironically come off as hostile himself to a critically thinking reader. Although the leading sentences in this article seemed promising and potentially informative, it turned fairly quickly into a bit of a witch hunt.

Oh my god. I love your writing style. I was originally looking up some essays about feminism for my English writing class, but I found so much more than just that. Your sarcasm can be felt even from behind my laptop all the way to the Netherlands. The statements are brilliant as well. So, although it has been seven years, I want to congratulate you because you absolutely made my day.